Bengal court sentences 3 men to death for 2020 rape, murder of 15-yr-old girl
'The accused were sentenced under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Pocso),' Debashis Dutta, special public prosecutor of the Pocso Court, told reporters.
Police had charged the accused with kidnapping, wrongful detention, gangrape, murder and destruction of evidence.
A district police officer said the crime took place in August 2020. The 15-year-old victim was a Madrasa student.
The accused, who were aged between 20 and 27 during the crime, used to work at an automobile garage and knew the victim.
On August 10, 2020, one of the three men kidnapped the girl from her home in the Rajganj area with the help of two of his friends. 'They took the minor to various hotels and raped her repeatedly before murdering her,' a police officer said.
They dumped her body in a septic tank. Her decomposed body was finally retrieved 12 days after the girl disappeared.
'The court heard 27 witnesses during the trial and described the crime as the rarest of the rare while announcing the sentence,' said Dutta.
'We sought justice. We are happy with the court order,' the victim's father told the local media.
On June 11 this year, the same court sentenced a 31-year-old man to death for raping and murdering an 11 -year-old girl in 2023. The victim, who lived in the Dhupguri region, had gone missing on September 29, 2023. Her body was found floating in the Dudwa river on October 1, 20 km away from her home.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
2 get jail ‘till last breath' for sodomising teen, smashing face with brick
Noida: A special Pocso court this week sentenced two men to jail "till last breath" for sodomising and bludgeoning to death a teenager, who had speech and hearing impairments, in Jewar in 2020. One of the two convicts was a friend of the teenager, whose body was found in a field a day after he was reported missing by his family. Special Pocso judge Vijay Kumar Himanshu, in the July 21 order, also imposed fines of Rs 1.15 lakh each on the convicts and directed that 80% of the amount should be given as compensation to the teenager's family. You Can Also Check: Noida AQI | Weather in Noida | Bank Holidays in Noida | Public Holidays in Noida The case dates to March 19, 2020, when the teenager's father filed a missing person's complaint in Jewar. During the investigation, the teenager's uncle told cops that he last saw him with the two accused. Police questioned the two accused, who admitted to taking the teenager with them to a desolate location near the State Degree College in Tappal on March 18. There, they sexually assaulted the teenager and when he threatened to tell his family, they killed him. "… they strangled him first and then killed him by crushing his face with a brick, so much so that it was disfigured beyond recognition," special public prosecutor Chavanpal Singh told the court, urging for exemplary punishment for the perpetrators. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Your Finger Shape Says a Lot About Your Personality, Read Now Tips and Tricks Undo During the hearings, the accused's counsel Mahesh Chandra argued that the entire case was fabricated and relied on the statement of the teenager's uncle. "In the absence of a serological test confirming the veracity of the deceased's identity, the accused have been falsely implicated and are entitled to acquittal," Chandra said. The prosecution presented nine witnesses, including a telecom service official, who confirmed that the mobile phones of the accused were traced to the area, where the teenager's body was found, at the time when the crime was committed. The judge said in the ruling that it was "of the opinion that disclosure by the accused and recovery of the dead body in the field near State Degree College, Tappal, is corroborated by the electronic evidence that the entire incident occurred between 3pm to 4.25pm on March 18, 2020, when the accused's location matches the place of recovery of the dead body". The court also observed that the murder was carried out in a state of panic. "The accused committed the act of sodomy, which the deceased would have revealed to their parents. Therefore, the immediate act was causing death through strangulation, but they remained unsuccessful. The immediate weapon of assault available on the spot was a brick, with which they brutally caused his death by causing a head injury to the extent of disfiguring the face beyond recognition," the order read. The special Pocso court dropped the charge of abduction against the accused but sentenced them to life imprisonment "till (last) breath" under section 302 (culpable homicide amounting to murder) and section 377 (unnatural sex) of IPC, and section 5/6 of the Pocso Act. The two were also sentenced to jail for three years under Section 201 of IPC for tampering evidence. All sentences will run concurrently, the order said.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Malegaon verdict on July 31: Recalling the 2008 bombing and the case against the accused
On Thursday (July 31), a special court in Mumbai will pronounce its verdict on the 2008 Malegaon blast case, in which former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit are among the accused. In one of the country's longest-running terror cases, seven accused have been on trial on charges including murder and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the anti-terrorism law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). Ahead of the judgment, this is a recall of what happened in Malegaon, and the major milestones in the 17-year journey of the case. The blast on September 29, 2008 A bomb went off at a chowk in Malegaon, a town known for its powerloom industry, about 100 km northeast of Nashik in Maharashtra. It was Ramzan, the holy month of fasting in Islam, and the blast, which took place in an area with a large Muslim population, killed six people and injured 100. The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which took over the investigation from the local police, suspected that the improvised explosive device (IED) had been planted on an LML Freedom motorcycle. It was suspected that the conspirators had consciously chosen the month of Ramzan and the eve of Navaratri to carry out the bombing, intending to cause communal rifts and endanger the internal security of the state. The ATS claimed that the registration number of the motorcycle that was found at the site of the explosion – MH-15-P-4572 – was fake, and that its engine number and chassis number had been erased. The motorcycle was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory in Nashik for restoration of the erased numbers. The ATS alleged that the owner of the bike was Pragya Singh Thakur alias Sadhwi Poornachetanand Giri, and arrested her on October 23, 2008. Thakur's arrest and interrogation, the ATS claimed, led it to the other accused. The agency said that it had intercepted phone calls of suspected persons. Calls between Lt Col Purohit and retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay were under scrutiny. Upadhyay and Sameer Kulkarni were arrested on October 28. By November 14, 2008, a total of 11 persons had been arrested. Among them was Purohit, who was arrested from the premises of the Army in Colaba in South Mumbai. The accused claimed that they were illegally detained by the ATS before being produced in court, and that they had been tortured in custody. In November 2008, the ATS invoked stringent sections of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) against them. They were accused of having formed an organisation named Abhinav Bharat, which was an organised crime syndicate. In its chargesheet filed on January 20, 2009, the ATS named the 11 arrested persons as accused, and another three as wanted accused. The accused were charged under the IPC and UAPA. The ATS claimed that the accused had discussed targeting Muslims as revenge against terrorist acts by Muslim men. It was also alleged that the accused had discussed working towards 'Aryawart' or a Hindu rashtra with its own Constitution and flag, and a 'government in exile'. According to the ATS, the conspiracy had begun from January 2008, and meetings were held at a number of places including Faridabad, Bhopal, and Nashik. The ATS claimed that Thakur had promised to provide people to carry out the bombing, and funds were raised through Abhinav Bharat. RDX, the plastic explosive used in the IED, was procured by Purohit from his posting in Jammu and Kashmir, and the bomb was assembled at the house of the arrested accused Sudhakar Chaturvedi, the ATS claimed. It was alleged that the explosive device was fitted on the motorcycle by Chaturvedi and another accused, Ramchandra Kalsangra, after which the vehicle was parked at the spot. NIA finds gaps in ATS investigation In 2011, the case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the federal investigation agency that was set up after the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. Even as the NIA continued with its investigation, the accused approached courts challenging the invocation of MCOCA against them, under which their confessions were recorded. In its chargesheet filed on May 13, 2016, the NIA dropped the charges under MCOCA, saying that the manner in which the organised crime law was invoked by the ATS was 'questionable'. The ATS probe, it said, was filled with 'lacunae', and of the 11 individuals arrested by the agency, evidence existed against only seven, and against the two wanted accused, Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange. The NIA said that the motorcycle registered in Thakur's name had been in the possession of Kalsangra, who was using it well before the blast. It also said that since MCOCA was not applied, confessions made under the Act, including a statement where it was claimed that Thakur had asked a co-accused to call Purohit to arrange for explosives, were inadmissible as evidence. Most of the ATS's case against the accused relied on confessions, and the NIA said that the confession of Chaturvedi was an 'outcome of torture'. It also said that due to the passage of time, no additional evidence could be recovered from the spot. The NIA re-recorded the statements of some witnesses before magistrates, citing inconsistencies in the ATS probe. Witnesses who the ATS had claimed were present in meetings in Bhopal and Faridabad where discussions on revenge and the blast were allegedly held, told the NIA that they were not present at these purported meetings, and did not hear any such talk. One of the main allegations in the NIA chargesheet was that the ATS had created false evidence to implicate the accused, and had illegally entered the house of Chatuvedi in Deolali, as was noticed by two Army officers. What court said on Thakur, Purohit, others Despite the NIA's pitch to drop Thakur as an accused, the special court hearing the case said there was prima facie evidence to put her on trial. Even though the NIA chargesheet claimed there was no witness or other proof to show her involvement in the conspiracy, the court said that it was difficult to accept Thakur's claim that she had no connection with the blast. On Purohit, a military intelligence officer, the court said that a conclusion could not be drawn that he had participated in the alleged conspiracy meetings ahead of the blast in the discharge of his duty and with the permission of his superiors, as he had claimed. On December 27, 2017, the court accepted the NIA's contention that MCOCA cannot be invoked in the case. It said that the seven accused – Thakur, Purohit, retired Major Upadhyay, Kulkarni, Chaturvedi, Ajay Rahirkar, and Sudhakar Dwivedi – would face trial under UAPA, IPC, and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The court also said that two other accused, Rakesh Dhawde and Jagdish Mhatre, would face trial only under the Arms Act, 1959, in Pune, and three others would be discharged for lack of evidence, as proposed by the NIA. How the trial of the accused progressed The trial began in December 2018. The ATS, the previous probe agency, did not have a say in the proceedings, but the prosecution relied on documents and evidence collected by both the ATS and the NIA during the trial. More than 30 witnesses who were cited in the chargesheet passed away before they could depose before the court. The prosecution examined 323 witnesses and cited technical evidence including Call Data Records and voice samples. Thirty-four of the witnesses turned hostile. The testimonies of these witnesses mainly related to Purohit and the alleged conspiracy meetings. These witnesses denied having participated in or heard any discussions by the accused about the conspiracy to carry out a bomb blast. Some of the accused also alleged that they had been coerced, illegally detained, and threatened by the ATS into giving false statements naming certain persons. In its final arguments, the prosecution submitted that there was evidence in respect of Call Data Records, and forensic evidence to show that the explosive device had been planted in the LML motorcycle. There was also evidence to show the presence of the accused at the places where the conspiracy meetings had taken place, and other documentary proof. The accused claimed that with witnesses turning hostile, the conspiracy was not proven at all. The accused also claimed that a mob of 15,000 had 'manipulated' the crime scene. Police officials deposed that a mob, angry about the attack, had gathered and stones were thrown at the police. Lawyers for the accused claimed that the mob was 'motivated', and had 'attempted to screen the real culprit'.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
BJP's Soumendu Adhikari urges Delhi Police to book Mamata Banerjee over assault claim on Bengali-speaking woman
Bharatiya Janata Party MP Soumendu Adhikari has lodged a police complaint in Delhi against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, alleging the dissemination of fabricated and communally provocative content through social media. Adhikari urged the Delhi Police to register an FIR against Mamata Banerjee under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the IT Act, preserve and examine the original social media content, investigate the alleged conspiracy involving a political worker and a journalist, and initiate appropriate penal action. In his letter addressed to the station house officer of the Cyber Crime Branch of Delhi Police, Adhikari accused Banerjee of sharing false information with the intent to defame the city police and disturb public order. According to Adhikari's letter, on July 27, Mamata Banerjee posted a message on her social media account alleging that a Bengali-speaking woman and her child were brutally assaulted by Delhi Police officers during a verification drive. 'The post further insinuated that the act was communal in nature and sought to project the Delhi Police as oppressors of linguistic minorities,' he said. The Kanthi MP claimed that such a post, coming from a constitutional functionary, was widely circulated online, sparking public outrage and causing reputational harm to the police force. Adhikati mentioned the clarification of Abhishek Dhania, Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Delhi, Monday that the woman, Sajnur Parveen, had fabricated her story. Initially, she alleged that four men in civil clothes abducted her and her children on July 26 and extorted Rs 25,000. However, scrutiny of CCTV footage and technical evidence revealed that she left her home voluntarily with her children, and no coercion was involved. Further interrogation revealed that Parveen confessed to fabricating the story under the influence of her uncle, a political worker in West Bengal's Malda district, and a journalist. 'The intention behind the video was to create a false narrative and circulate it in social media for political and defamatory purposes,' alleged Adhikari in his letter. Adhikari outlined several legal provisions that he believes Banerjee's post may have violated, including provoking riots, promoting enmity on religious and linguistic grounds, insulting with the intent to provoke a breach of peace, spreading hatred, and cyber terrorism.
